Skip to main content

Cultural Fault Lines

Many people are familiar with geologic faults, such as the San Andreas fault.

A fault line is the where the discontinuity between the two sides of the geographic fault becomes visible as the stresses in the fault causes the two sides to slip past each other.







This fence (located near Point Reyes CA) was separated by the 1906 San Francisco earthquake.

Fault lines also exist within organizations, the Catholic Church and religious congregations are no exception.

In an organization multiple fault lines will exist between the primary and various sub-cultures.  As long as there is sufficient commonality between the two cultures and no pressure (challenging of cultural assumptions) is applied, the difference between the cultures remains hidden beneath the surface. However, once pressure is applied the differences between the two cultures becomes evident as the slip fault in the picture above.

At this point, fault lines are coming to the surface in both the Church as a whole and the Society of St. Pius the Tenth (SSPX) as cultural assumptions are being challenged in both organizations.

In the case of the Catholic Church, both external and internal pressure is being applied apparently with two aims:

  1. To prevent the Pope from regularizing the SSPX without an unconditional acceptance of the teachings of the Second Vatican Council.
  2. That the Church does not deviate from the "world's" interpretation of the documents of the Second Vatican Council.  
If the SSPX were to be regularized without accepting the Second Vatican Council in entirety, it would signal that one can criticize the teachings and evolving liturgy of the Second Vatican Council as the SSPX does, and remain within the Catholic Church. Further it could be interpreted that the theological position of the SSPX concerning the four documents that it holds as contradicting Church Teaching could be correct.

This not an acceptable situation to a number of groups both in and outside the Church. 

In the case of the SSPX, while there is external pressure to accept the Council, internally the possibility of a regularization of the SSPX definitely challenged a number of assumptions held by some of its priests, laity and even one of the four Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre.

The exact nature of the 'assumption' remains difficult to discern from the more vocal opponents to the regularization, a regularization that did not occur.  Given the spawning of conspiracy theories that occurred after the June meeting of Bishop Fellay and the Cardinal Levada, when Bishop Fellay was refused to compromise on the principles of the SSPX, I would conclude that there are at least two opinions behind this opposition.

The first opinion is that the Pope is not the Pope, the so-called sedevacantist thesis.  I point this out not because I believe that everyone that who opposes a no-compromise regularization is sedevacantist, but because I have qualitatively noted that some sedevacantists are 'rabid' in their opposition to the Pope and therefore oppose any regularization of the SSPX. 

The second opinion, I believe, is related to a deep distrust of the Pope as well as the hierarchy in general.  There are ample reasons for this distrust and this distrust has been reinforced numerous times over the past 40+ years. 

However, this distrust is not a reliable 'principle' by which one can make decisions. The reason is that distrust is a subjective opinion about the interiour motivations of the person who is the focus of this distrust. 

I believe that the principle of St. Thomas, invoked by Bishop Fellay, is a much better guide in determining when submission is required. When I first read this part of the Summa, I noted that trust has nothing to do with when submission to a superiour is required. This places the principle in the sphere of objective reality.

From an cultural point of view when someone perceives a change in culture or discovers that the organization that they belong to does not actually hold the same cultural assumptions and values, there are three possible outcomes:
  1. Change
  2. Fight
  3. Flight / Leave
The flight, imposed or otherwise from the SSPX of a number of priests and one Bishop has been accomplished. 

Whether or not Bishop Fellay was justified (I believe he was) in these actions is irrelevant from this perspective. The culture of the SSPX is strong and those with equally strong but misaligned cultural assumptions have now left or been expelled. 

From this point of view, the cultural assumptions have been put into bold relief for its members. The culture has been reinforced: when the Pope issues a command or even a simple request that does not go against the Faith, then it requires obedience.  The exact structure of a command that meets the principle of St. Thomas, I trust Bishop Fellay to discern.

Those who are 'misaligned' to such a degree that they fight this cultural assumption, one that I maintain has always been present within the SSPX, will eventually leave or be expelled since it is obvious that they are the ones misaligned and not the SSPX.

P^3
Prayer
Penance
Patience



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

"Father, Should I Attend That Mass?" Advice on Attending Non-SSPX Latin Masses

 + JMJ I see that the 'resistors' are in a tizzy because Fr. Robinson used them as an example instead of the sedevacantists. What is interesting is that you can apply the exact same reasons against going to a sede mass as that of the 'resistors'. Namely: On the other extreme are those situations where an SSPX priest knows that a certain non-SSPX traditionalist venue is a grave danger to the faith . Frankly, most, if not all, of the Resistance Masses would fall into this category. In many cases, the behavior of these priests has been and continues to be scandalous, by their (A) spirit, their (B) preaching, and their indiscriminate conferral of the (C) priesthood and (D) episcopacy. To attend a Mass with such ongoing scandals poses a serious danger to the souls of the faithful. Yep, looking at A,B,C and D the shoe fits. On this basis the "resistors" = "sedevacantists". P^3 Courtesy of SSPX.org   A companion article to a recent "Questions with ...

Correcting Caricatures of the SSPX

 + JMJ Introduction First, a little background on the FSSP St. John Vianney Chapel in Mission Hill Kansas.  After the 1988 consecrations and the foundation of the FSSP there was a consistent trend of Dioceses allowing the SSPX to run chapels and churches near SSPX locations. As with any 'organizational change' there were those who didn't agree with the change and no longer sought the sacraments from the SSPX. I heard from friends that in that era there was a lot of anger and tension (on both sides) between the St. Mary's SSPX and Mission Hill FSSP.  Second, there have been caricatures of the SSPX position (some are evident below) in which personal opinions of SSPX priests and laity are taken as the official position or conflated with those of sedevacantists or 'resistance'. Recent Perspectives of the SSPX Position In the shadow of the consecrations a fever pitch accusations and opinions how surfaced - many of which include caricatures of the SSPX positions, of w...

SSPX: Why Is the SSPX So Criticized?

 + JMJ As long as you are ok with what happens in other Catholic Churches, Traditional Catholics will be left 'alone'.  This is a paraphrase of words spoken by an Archbishop to Traditional Catholics (with a sprinkling of SSPX) who had requested the Traditional Latin Mass under Summorum Pontificum. This reflects that attitude of the Church towards anyone who takes issue with some of the ambiguities of Vatican II and the post-conciliar magisterium.  If you reject the papacy but are ok with V2, the New Mass, and what Rome has stated since 1965 - then you are welcome. Question some of the more abiguous statements and ask for Rome to realise that a circle is not a square - then you are in for a world of hurt. This is where the SSPX exists and has existed from almost its very first moments. Pointing out contradictions with previous magisterium is not acceptable - under any condition. Why? Because it will cause the whole V2 house of cards to fall. I guess only when the contradic...

Stories: Early Days of Tradition Part 8 - Convention Centre Chapel

 + JMJ I came to Tradition a few years after they had bought a chapel. My wife told me of the earlier years when Fr. Normandin would come to town and Mass would be held in a room at the convention centre.  He'd start by blessing the room and then proceed with Mass. This went on for a while before the one of the faithful found a small hall that would suit just fine. They pooled their money and bought the building.  Then came the work as the retiree's refinished the floor, setup the sactuary. Oh, did I mention that I heard that the hall had been used by a motorcycle gang? The floor needed a lot of work.  I remember seeing pictures of the founders working to make the hall into a fitting place for the Sacrifice of the Mass. That little chapel would be a refuge like many others serviced by Fr. Normandin.  From Thunderbay, Ontrario to Nanaimo, British Columbia - the SSPX chapels are all the results of Fr. Normandin's missionary work in those desperate times. Without h...

How many more must die for the throne? or How to combat FUD!

 + JMJ How many more must die for the throne? (Movie Quote: Prince Caspian) The Spread of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt I've seen a lot of FUD spreading across the intergnat on various stats etc.   So let's put this in context ... especially the perspective of those people in positions of authority who need to make decisions to protect the lives of their citizens. Yep, this is going to be that type of post.  Like it or not the leaders of our governments have their authority from God.  So, as Catholics should know, you need to have a very good reason to deliberately disobey the orders of their superiors. This is basic St. Thomas Aquinas ... so don't blame me for discussing things from a Catholic perspective. The leaders of our countries have taken action to protect the vulnerable of our countries.   As much as the young and not-so-young may whine and complain - I have to ask how many more of our elderly have to die? What the armchair virologists and ec...